May 7, 2019 Ballot Initiatives

A homeless person and his dog walk along the Sand Creek Trail. Homeless camps along the Sand Creek Greenway have been moved and cleaned up periodically.

Homeless camping proposal tops Denver ballot measures

Denver voters, who had to wade through eight city ballot measures and 13 statewide proposals last November, have it easy for the May 7 municipal election.

There are only two initiatives for voters to decide, but both are of more interest than your routine amend-the-city charter proposal.

Initiated Ordinance 300 is the controversial plan to repeal Denver’s homeless camping ban, and Initiated Ordinance 301 would decriminalize private possession and use of hallucinogenic mushrooms in the city.

Proposals floated previously on wage rates at Denver International Airport, a public vote on the Olympics and municipal Internet service won’t be on the ballot.

The ballot measure to increase the minimum wage for some DIA workers was withdrawn after City Council approved a pay increase at the airport. The proposal to require voter approval for spending public funds on any future Olympic Games will be on the June ballot if there is a citywide runoff election for Denver mayor or an at-large council seat. If that doesn’t happen, it will be on next November’s ballot.

Some observers question the need for that measure, given than U.S. Olympic officials have designated Salt Lake City as the U.S. candidate for the 2020 Winter Games, seemingly leaving Denver out of the running.

Todd Engdahl is owner of Capitol Editorial Services, a firm that provides legislative coverage, intelligence and analysis to private clients. During a long career as a political writer and editor, he served as executive city editor of The Denver Post, founder of DenverPost.com and founder of Education News Colorado, which later became part of Chalkbeat Colorado.

#300 Right To Survive Initiative

What it would do

According to the language of the initiative, its passage would guarantee anyone the right to rest and shelter in a non-obstructive manner in outdoor public spaces, as well as to eat, share, accept or give free food in any public space where food isn’t prohibited. It also would make it legal to occupy a properly parked motor vehicle and “have a right and expectation of privacy and safety in one’s person and property.”

Context and history

Homelessness has been a persistent problem in Denver for decades, despite various efforts started under then-Mayor John Hickenlooper. Downtown business interests think homeless people on the streets mar the city’s image, and homeless camping in parks and green spaces is a concern for nearby residents.

In 2012 the City Council passed the so-called camping ban, which made it illegal to use “protective” elements such as blankets, tarps and tents for shelter in public spaces. The ordinance was in response to concerns about homeless encampments. Police have used the law not so much to arrest people but to break up camps and “move people along.”

Advocates for people experiencing homelessness have long criticized the ban as discriminatory criminalization of homelessness. Democratic lawmakers have unsuccessfully pushed a similar “right to rest” bill in the legislature. This year’s version of the bill was pulled to see what happens with the Denver initiative.

How it would work

The initiative basically would repeal the camping ban, eliminating police enforcement of where homeless people congregate. It would be legal to “rest” on any outdoor property owned or leased by the city and accessible to the public or on any city property that has an easement for public use. Rest is defined as “sitting, sleeping and lying down.”

Non-obstructive is defined as not making passageways impassable or hazardous for other people. Supporters say the measure would allow park curfews to remain in place.

Who’s behind it

The initiative is backed by a coalition of advocates for the homeless and has been endorsed by the Denver Democratic Party, the ACLU, the National Coalition for the Homeless and Bayaud Enterprises, a Denver non-profit that provides job training and jobs for the disabled. The campaign has raised about $54,000, according to media reports.

Who opposes it

A variety of business interests, including the Downtown Denver Partnership, the Associated General Contractors and the business advocacy group Colorado Concern oppose the measure. That group has raised about $600,000, money that presumably will be spent on mailers and other media as the election nears. “No on 300” yard signs have started popping up in some neighborhoods.

Established groups that serve the homeless are conflicted about the proposal. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and the Homeless Leadership Council, an umbrella organization of service providers, oppose the current camping ban but are neutral on the ballot measure. Some groups have raised concerns about “unintended consequences,” such as reduced motivation to finding housing solutions if people experiencing homelessness can camp out.

CORRECTION: The print edition and the original post in this article incorrectly said Together Colorado opposes Initiative 300. Together Colorado has not taken a position on this issue.

Pros and cons

Proponents of the measure argue that homelessness should not be criminalized and that the camping ban is basically a violation of civil rights. They say that some homeless people understandably avoid shelters because of safety concerns and because shelters often separate partners and people from their pets.

Opponents argue that there is adequate space for the homeless in the city’s shelters and that outdoor camping is a health hazard to both the homeless and to citizens who use parks, trails and open space. They also argue that passage of the initiative could weaken the city’s ability to regulate safety and cleanliness in public spaces.

#301 Psilocybin Initiative

What it would do

The measure would make personal use and possession of psilocybin mushrooms by people 21 or older the city’s lowest law-enforcement priority and forbid the city from spending resources to impose criminal penalties for such personal use and possession. It also would establish a review panel to assess and report on the effects of the ordinance. Mushrooms couldn’t be displayed or used in public, and sale would continue to be subject to prosecution under current state law.

Context and history

Use of hallucinogenic mushrooms has a long history in many cultures for religious and medical purposes. Their use was part of the broad counter-cultural movement of the 1960s and ‘70s that also celebrated marijuana and LSD. While mushrooms remain a controlled substance under federal drug laws, there has been renewed interest in mushrooms as possibly being beneficial for a variety of psychological and physical medical conditions. (It’s no coincidence that these assertions sound similar to the arguments advanced for legalization of marijuana. As with marijuana, those assertions aren’t necessarily backed by full scientific studies.)

How it would work

The measure basically proposes to “decriminalize” private possession and use of mushrooms by adults. Decriminalization is a legal technique that doesn’t fully legalize certain activities but merely directs police and prosecutors to not enforce certain laws. (The Denver District Attorney’s office has prosecuted only a handful of mushroom cases in recent years.) How decriminalization of mushroom use would work is hard to predict. It should be noted that Denver voters did pass marijuana decriminalization in 2005 and 2007, before recreational use was legalized by voters in 2012, but Denver police continued to enforce marijuana laws after those city votes.

Who’s behind it

Kevin Matthews, a stay-at-home parent who had to drop out of West Point because of depression, is the measure’s public face. He says mushroom use has helped him. In addition to activists working with Matthews, the Denver Green Party and the Libertarian Party of Colorado have endorsed the measure.

There appears to be no organized opposition. But Jeff Hunt, director of the Centennial Institute think tank at Colorado Christian University, has been trotted out in media interviews as an opponent. The Institute has emerged as a lone, after-the-fact opponent of marijuana legalization. Denver District Attorney Beth McCann and Mayor Michael Hancock have publicly opposed the initiative.

Pros and cons

Research on use of mushrooms is partial and sometimes contradictory, probably because federal bans on various drugs have long restricted medical studies of their effects. How people vote on this issue boils down to their views on how much freedom individuals should have to use various drugs.

Links to text and advocate information

Initiative text: https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/778/documents/VoterInfo/PsilocybinThirdSamplePetition_2018-10-2.pdf Support campaign: Decriminalize Denver https://decriminalizedenver.org Opposition campaign: There’s no organized opposition and no website we could find.

One comment on “May 7, 2019 Ballot Initiatives”

I’ve posted this on NextDoor discussions about Initiative 300, i.e., where do the mayoral candidates stand on the issue?

Google: Westword “elect me mayor”
for 6 articles in which the candidates all answered the same set of Westword questions.
Below are their responses to the question:

What’s your position on the Right to Rest (Survive) bill?

Lisa Calderon supports it.
I support the Right to Rest bill (HB19-1096) that has been introduced in the legislature for this session. The Right to Rest and the Right to Survive ballot initiative (Initiative 300) are essentially the same bill in that they protect the same rights, including the repeal of Denver’s Unauthorized Camping Ordinance.
—————————
Penfield Tate supports it.
I support the Right to Rest bill and its goals, but my plan for dealing with homelessness in the first 100 days of my administration will hopefully make the measure irrelevant.
—————————-
Jamie Giellis does NOT support it.
I believe that people who are homeless deserve our respect and compassion. I don’t believe the Right to Survive [initiative] is the right solution to the problem, and I will not be supporting it.
——————————
Mayor Hancock does not support it.
…(T)he Right to Rest legislation that is proposed at the state annually is not the answer. This legislation as well as Initiative 300, set for the Denver ballot, create no new solutions or resources for the most vulnerable in our community.

Lisa Calderon: I fully support the city having this site where we need it
Penfield Tate: I will support Denver’s proposed pilot project if the Colorado
General Assembly passes a bill allowing their operation.
Jamie Giellis: I do not support supervised use sites.
Mayor Hancock: I supported Denver’s supervised use site ordinance.